BHAGWAN VISHWANATH GUTTE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — WP/12594/2017
Case under Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Writ Pet. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 22nd April 2026.
CNR: HCBM030392992017
Next Hearing
19th June 2020
Filing Number
WP/31914/2017
Filing Date
25-09-2017
Registration No
WP/12594/2017
Registration Date
23-10-2017
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHAGWAN VISHWANATH GUTTE
Adv. Munde H.K.,MAHESH P. KALE FOR PETITIONER,MAHESH P. KALE FOR PETITIONER, MAHESH P. KALE FOR PETITIONER
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Adv. GP FOR R/1 TO 3 1123
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
DUE ADMISSION -CIVIL
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-06-2020 | DUE ADMISSION -CIVIL |
| 31-01-2025 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
| 04-12-2024 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
| 11-11-2024 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
| 10-09-2024 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/12594/2017 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the petitioners' writ petitions, quashing the Civil Judge's September 2017 order that rejected their amendment applications in land acquisition reference proceedings. The court held that merely commencing evidence cannot bar amendment applications; petitioners must be allowed to prove amended pleadings and expert reports, with respondents retaining the right to oppose them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/12594/2017 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the petitioners' writ petitions, quashing the Civil Judge's September 2017 order that rejected their amendment applications in land acquisition reference proceedings. The court held that merely commencing evidence cannot bar amendment applications; petitioners must be allowed to prove amended pleadings and expert reports, with respondents retaining the right to oppose them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts